Talk:Investigative Project on Terrorism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Islamophobia banner

There is a consensus that the Islamophobia banner does not present a NPOV violation. You can see this consensus at Talk:Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism/Archive_1#RFC:_Does_the_use_of_the_Islamophobia_template_in_this_article_violate_wikipedias_policy_on_NPOV.3F Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for speedy deletion.

After thoroughly analyzing the criteria for notability, some of which I've included in my post above, it is very clear this article falls short of being notable, and is riddled with policy violations. Any information that references Steven Emerson can easily be added to his BLP. Atsme☯Consult 15:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Forgot to add that I attempted to add the deletion banner advising the author, User_talk:Firefly322, of the request, but that user has been blocked indefinitely. Atsme☯Consult
Since the speedy deletion tag was removed, I replaced it with an Afd for the same reasons stated in my original request for speedy deletion. Atsme☯Consult 17:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Time to start cleaning up this mess.

I'll begin by thanking you for closing the off-topic rant, and requesting that you please stop accusing me of forum shopping as you did above. Your allegations are groundless, and irrelevant to improving this article. I would also like to consult you that it would prove far more beneficial to this project if your efforts to recruit Binksternet and Roscelese were for the purpose of helping me improve this article instead of helping you find evidence to support your bad faith attempts to get me topic banned. Keep in mind, you also falsely accused me of canvassing when I simply requested collaboration on the Talk page of Djrun to help me improve a draft I was working on in my sandbox for the IPT Foundation. My understanding of GF editors is that we spend time collaborating in an effort to make articles better, not waste time trying to get GF editors topic banned simply because their interpretation of policy is different from your own.

In light of the fact I was the primary editor of what has proven to be an article riddled with policy/guideline issues, I am certainly open to the task of improving it. It's an embarrassment to me now that I've acquired a better understanding of policy, particularly WP:BLPGROUPS. As noted and agreed to in prior discussions on this Talk page, as well as in the recent BLPN discussion you initiated, the article clearly lacks top quality RS as required by policy. Extra precautions must be strictly adhered to as a result of the inextricable linking of Emerson to IPT, which was one of the reasons I started a new article about the IPT Foundation. Although Emerson is the executive director, the Foundation is a legally recognized "separate entity" organized in 2006 by Emerson, and designated by the IRS in 2007 as a nonprofit charity. The article needs to be rewritten in an effort to avoid the inextricable link to Emerson, provided such a task is possible. The draft in my Sandbox attempts to accomplish that goal as well as correctly name the article in order to avoid repeating the same violations. The most recent BLPN you initiated certainly went a long way in confirming my concerns over the issues plaguing this article. I included my summary of the discussion below:

Final Summary of why template is a BLP violation per WP:BLPGROUPS which refers to A SMALL GROUP OR LEGAL PERSON

No reliable secondary or third party sources that confirm IPT and/or its legal person, Steven Emerson, are Islamophobic. Inclusion of the template on IPT would be the same as inclusion of the template on Steven Emerson because the two are inextricably linked; please read WP:BLPGROUPS which does not require the violation to be against a "living person";

  • Comment from InedibleHulk who also confirms source used to justify the template is biased - The Center for American Progress seems to think the organization is Islamophobic, but judging from their article, they're hardly objective observers. I've removed the box, as it seems to rely solely on that claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment by NorthBySouthBaranof who draws attention to sources that are not reliable, NPOV, and how Emerson is inextricably linked to IPT (all BLP violations) when he suggested merging/redirecting to Emerson - I kind of feel like this thing needs to be stubbed and stripped, if not merge/redirected to Stephen Emerson. I don't see what's really notable about it, and with the exception of one Salon article, pretty much all the sources are polemic from either side — right-wing sources think the group is doing great work investigating alleged terrorism and left-wing sources think the group is peddling Islamophobic conspiracy theories. There's hardly any neutral sources here, which suggests it's not particularly notable from a mainstream perspective. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment by DocumentError who agreed with all of my points, and also confirmed inextricable link with respect to the BLP violation - I agree with all points made by Atsme with respect to the article and template, above. And it does seem that IPT is inextricably linked to the Emerson guy. DocumentError (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment by Epeefleche who confirmed the template is an exercise of POV which violates WP:BLP - Responding to the question first posed, the template applied to that article does not appear apt, but rather an exercise of POV. Epeefleche (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments in a recent ANI BLP about IPT also confirm BLP violations - Well the BLP violation may stem from more than merely saying that it was said. I can see a good argument that it violates WP:UNDUE to put the claim that the day after the Oklahoma City Bombing Emerson suggested that it might have been perpetrated by Muslim terrorists in the lead section of an article about a think tank Emerson founded. In which case it probably would also violate WP:BLP.[1]

In summary, the template is clearly a violation under WP:BLPGROUPS for all the reasons mentioned above, and because it lacks the required high-quality sources, relies heavily on its self-published website, violates NPOV, has no reliable secondary or third party sources that make a distinction between IPT and Steven Emerson. A BLP WP:BLPGROUPS violation does not require it to be against a "living person", rather the policy refers to a small group or legal person. Atsme☯Consult 13:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I remain optimistic that with the help of GF editors, we can make this article worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Atsme☯Consult 23:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If you feel that I have falsely accused you of forumshopping then I encourage you to take this to ANI. If you feel that I have falsely accused you of canvassing I encourage you to take it to ANI. All of this is at BLPN. If the uninvolved closer finds that the consensus is that this Template is not a BLP violation it will go back in based on the prior consensus.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Off Topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do you realize how much more productive we'd all be without your needless disruptions and taunting? Try writing your own GA instead of hijacking articles from other editors, and disrupting the whole project. Don't you know how to write prose? It's obvious that you aren't a GF collaborator - you're a disruptive POV pusher. Stop the disruptions, and stop trying to push your skewed POV and misinterpretations of policy on other editors, especially those who are far more accomplished than you at writing prose. Do something productive instead of wasting everyone's time with your nonsense. Atsme☯Consult 15:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
That's not taunting. But if you feel that it is disruptive or taunting then you can absolutely take it to Ani. Why are you discussing GA when what you want to do is delete this article? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
You spend waaaay too much time taunting and hounding me. I have teenagers at home, so I'm used to being hounded by children. Are you hounding me because you're lonely? Bored? Have too much time on your hands? Feel deprived of much needed attention? Wikipedia is not the place to seek remedies for personal issues. Try writing or improving an article instead of disrupting GF editors. Spend time in your Sandbox learning how to write prose. Do something productive. Bye-bye! Atsme☯Consult 15:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I've haven't taunted you or hounded you but if you feel that I have then encourage you to take it to ANI. I don't actually care about your personal life.If you want to talk about it I'm sure you can find someone on facebook. Keep your childish personal attacks about my personal life to yourself. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
That's your problem right there - you keep projecting your own behavior on me after I've asked you to stop hounding me. I have never personally attacked you. YOU are the one who was called down at a recent ANI because of your incivility. You have done nothing but attack me personally, have called me racist, a forum shopper, and a POV pusher - all fabricated BS from a spoiled little boy who has to get his way. Read your own comments - you have to comment on every single thing I say even though you don't know what you're talking about. It is childish behavior, and it is disruptive. As I suggested above, try writing or improving an article instead of disrupting GF editors. Spend time in your Sandbox learning how to write prose. Do something productive. If you think you're such a good editor, enter the GA Cup, and start reviewing nominated articles to help reduce the backlog. Atsme☯Consult 03:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not hounding you though if you feel that I am I encourage you to take it to ANI. No I called some of your comments racist. Those comments were racist. You are trying to forumshop an issue to BLPN. Before you tried to shop it to ani multiple times. You were the one that made it clear that you here to right the great wrongs so if you don't like being called a POV pusher then quit pushing POV. I'm not disrupting a good faith editor. You are not a good faith editor. You are Tendentious editor. And You have been uncivil dating back to February. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
This Talk page is for discussing the article, not the issues you've fabricated about me, and feel compelled to share with others who don't give a big rat's behind. Take your lies and stuff them where you won't trip over them in the future. If by some unforeseen miracle you come up with a suggestion to improve the article, I'll be happy to consider it and let you know what I think. Otherwise, stop bugging me. If you have time to waste, keep doing what you've been doing on ANI and BLPN trying to convince other editors you know something about policy. Above all, try to have a fun day! Atsme☯Consult 20:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
There's no fabrication. If you feel that I have fabricated anything about you on wikipedia I encourage you to take it to ani. If at any point you would like to discuss, for the very first time, improving the article please feel free to start such a discussion.Certainly have a good day.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The Funding Section proves why IPT needs to be deleted...

The Funding section states The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation funds the Investigate Project on Terrorism, clearly demonstrating two separate entities. This is why the IPT article needs to be merged with Steven Emerson, and then publish The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation article I've been working on. Atsme☯Consult 05:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

General notability guidelines

A tag was put up saying this does not meet General notability guidelines. This should be discussed here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I provided the following policy information for convenience - Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)
  1. An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
  2. An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable. Examples: If a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant does not "inherit" notability from its owner. If a notable person joins an organization, the organization does not "inherit" notability from its member.
  3. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.
  4. Sources which primarily discuss allegations of unlawfulness shall not be considered when assessing an organization's notability per this guideline.
  5. A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it. Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:
  • press releases, press kits, or similar works;
  • self-published materials;
  • any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it;
  • advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization;
  • corporate websites or other websites written, published, or controlled by the organization;
  • patents, whether pending or granted;
  • any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly;
  • other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.
The one-sentence lead in this article is in itself, self-published information, and totally inaccurate according to reports published by secondary sources as a result of their independent investigations and research. 99% of the information included in this article except for one or two criticisms about the actual formation, legality of the funding and purpose of IPTF all revert back to Steven Emerson, or originate from the organization's own press releases, and original document archives. The article cites original sources, or self-published sources which is a violation of WP:NOR, and fails to meet the notability criteria.
All attempts to link the IPT Foundation which was formed in 2006 to Steven Emerson's work as an independent terrorism expert, a CNN reporter, and/or leader of The Investigative Project which is the think-tank he established are a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR.
See the work-in-progress article I've started: The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation for which I recently requested collaboration, and need for reliable sources.
The difficulty in finding reliable sources for the information contained in the existing IPT article has been acknowledged by several editors. It is a serious issue. There simply isn't anything available that could be considered compliant with WP policy. Most of the information originates from the organization's press releases, other self-published documents, and/or actual court cases and Congressional hearings. Having reliable sources for one or two incidents questioning the organization's funding does not make the organization notable, or worthy of inclusion. Atsme☯Consult 22:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Since the investigative project on Terrorism foundation is one and the same as the group in this article it's unclear why you are trying to get people to collaborate in your private sandbox. The source in the lead that you dislike is a primary source used to claim that IPT was founded in 1995. This source is in line with wp:sps guidelines. I removed the unreliable source template for it. The CBS 48 hours source had a template improperly put beside it as well so I removed it. I'll review the other templates and remove them accordingly later.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
You are disruptive, don't have a clue what you're doing, and are a detriment to this project. What you just did further validated my case at the ANI. Atsme☯Consult 01:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Greg Barrett source

This source is clearly coming from advocacy book the publishing house is not scholarly and the author is not expert on the topic.Can someone can explain why it should stay in the article as it give undue weight that IPT somehow connected to Islamophobia.--Shrike (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The editor that put that in is not currently active on wikipedia. They were wanting to cover CAP's position but use a secondary source. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The information seems to be in Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance as well, which looks like a better source. We can replace it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a page number?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's formatted for ebook on Google Books so it's hard to find a proper page number, but here's a link [2] - that's the footnotes, but there's also a page where it comes up. I'm able to find more hits when naming Emerson rather than IPT, since it seems to be sort of a one-man op. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
My brain isn't working right now? You wouldn't want to swap the source would you?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Let's see what Shrike thinks, since it was s/he who was unhappy with the Orbis source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Shrike, the entire article has major problems because of the unreliable sources, not to mention issues with WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH. An experienced editor can see the violations immediately by looking at the infobox. The IPT article is nothing more than a stub in dire need of improvement, or deletion if there aren't enough reliable sources to make it Wiki worthy. Roscelese further validated the need to merge and delete this article in her statement above...I'm able to find more hits when naming Emerson rather than IPT, since it seems to be sort of a one-man op. There simply aren't any reliable sources to validate anything in the IPT article.

In my recent request to merge parts of this article with Steven Emerson, the ANRFC reviewer, Sunrise, made an important closing statement: Note that this close does not evaluate whether the articles are compliant with policy (e.g. WP:NOR); it would be a good idea for the editors here to resolve these issues, but they would only have become relevant to the merger question if so much of the article was noncompliant that nearly all of it had to be deleted, and arguments to this effect have not been presented. On the topic of canvassing, in my opinion the messages were indeed non-neutral, but none of the editors joined the discussion here so it did not affect the outcome. Sunrise (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC) See it here [3]

Concerned editors cannot ignore the fact that there was no legal non-profit entity known as The Investigative Project on Terrorism in 1995. The name is a misnomer, and the misinformation is being perpetuated by inaccurate information on Emerson's own self-published site, [4] wherein it states IPT is a non-profit research group founded by Steven Emerson in 1995. I have cited secondary sources that substantiate the nonprofit's non-existence in 1995, and the controversy surrounding that claim. The actual legal name of the non-profit research group is The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, which was neither founded nor legally organized until 2006. As editors, it is our job to maintain accuracy and cite reliable secondary sources which I have done. The IPT article is riddled with violations, and they must be corrected. During the years prior to Emerson organizing The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, there was simply Steven Emerson, a CNN reporter, and self-proclaimed terrorism expert. He organized a think-tank referred to as the "Investigative Project", which he also ran. I have cited two different published secondary sources to validate the information, so no original research was involved. I began a corrected version of the article for the sake of accuracy to replace the current embarrassment titled IPT. See it here: User:Atsme/Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism_Foundation. Soon after I announced my intent to improve the article, two bad faith redirects were initiated, including Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism_Foundation and The_Investigative_Project, both of which are in violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. Bottomline, if the IPT article cannot be improved in a collaborative attempt, it should be deleted. Atsme☯Consult 21:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't want to try to canvass more editors here before you start? Do you really want to have this conversation be transparent? The last person you canvassed you attempted to have them discuss this article in your sandbox. Bad faith redirects? They are all other known names for the organization in this article. MAybe you don't understand what bad faith means. You see your efforts to canvass other users as good faith. You see your attempt to merge and delete this article while privately planning to later recreate it as good faith. You see your effort to avoid the normal tranparency of editing wikipedia as good faith. Yes I don't think you understand what the two mean. Have you considered using the wikipedia help desk? OR the teahouse? I can get you a link.
Why lie exactly? Tell us about your noble effort to improve this article? OR rather your effort to white wash the article. Your effort dating back to March. Why merge and delete and then move to recreate and under a different title? Oh yes, The Islamophobia banner. You want to remove it but you don't know how to get a consensus to do so. Nice Straw grasping by the way. But this isn't a one man operation. Lorenzo Vidino was the deputy director of the investigative project in 2007. As you should distinctly recall Pete Hoekstra is with them. In "Blood from Stones: The Secret Financial Network of Terror" Douglas Farah also points out that it isn't a one man show. You should drop that straw and move on to your next one.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Read WP:Collaboration, and stop spewing nonsense. Atsme☯Consult 15:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Atsme, I've often been in your position of unsuccessfully trying to delete an article because it seemed non-notable or because it seemed largely to overlap with another article. But since the consensus was not to merge this article, we all must work with the article as it stands, rather than refusing to discuss the issues because the discussion didn't go the way we wanted it to. Please don't attempt to derail a discussion of sources. Serialjoepsycho, if you wish to continue engaging, I suggest doing so in a new section or on a user talk page, so that we can continue discussing sources for the CAP report here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Roscelese, I'm not necessarily trying to delete this article provided it can be improved. I requested collaboration in hopes of improving it. As it stands now, IPT is riddled with violations of WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH which I inadvertently failed to address in the now closed request to merge and delete. I simply want to fix the problems by following the advice of the ANRFC reviewer, Sunrise, who I quoted above with diffs from Emerson Talk as follows: Note that this close does not evaluate whether the articles are compliant with policy (e.g. WP:NOR); it would be a good idea for the editors here to resolve these issues, but they would only have become relevant to the merger question if so much of the article was noncompliant that nearly all of it had to be deleted, and arguments to this effect have not been presented. On the topic of canvassing, in my opinion the messages were indeed non-neutral, but none of the editors joined the discussion here so it did not affect the outcome. Sunrise (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC) I have not moved forward regarding the violations because I'd much rather correct the problems. I actually began a corrected article on July 2nd which can be seen in the raw here: User:Atsme/Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism_Foundation, and encourage collaboration because of the ongoing issues of neutrality, and lack of reliable sources. The IPT article as it currently stands is noncompliant because of the WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH violations that are staring us in the face. I also wanted to mention the reviewer overlooked User:Binksternet as another editor who approved the merge and acknowledged the incorrect name of the article, the exclusion of which I believe may have weighed-in on her denial of my request, but that was a result of my inexperience in the merge and delete process. Binksternet's actual comment can be found in the IPT Talk Archive 1, and I've included it here for your convenience: I'm in favor of moving this article to Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation as you suggest, and having the Emerson biography corrected to reflect accurate secondary sources (rather than self-serving primary sources) but I'm not so hot on the idea that all of Emerson's former activities should be fully removed from this article. We should tell the reader what came before, and how it is related. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Roscelese, this article has been an absolute struggle to improve which begs the question, why? When I first began trying to improve it, I collaborated with User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, and we struggled back and forth. The Talk page discussions reflect far more effort than what was invested in the article itself. Alf also mentioned what you and other experienced main article editors so wisely realize - the majority of sources point back to Emerson. The article is clearly noncompliant because of the named policy violations, and if we cannot fix them, what are the options? Atsme☯Consult 14:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Well look at what we have here. This is where you attribute binksternet approving the merger. But then they didn't approve the merger. They approved the name change. Except there's that whole pesky policy wp:commonname. While your Investigative project on terrorism foundation might be it's proper name it's not it's common name. The policy is already clear. This article is named properly. Move on or provide appropriate policy based argument. Your mentioning Sunrise's comments and you are saying that you are trying to follow their advice. But then the advice is the editors involved resolve the issues that were not resolved. Sunrise did not suggest that you go again and canvass other users here. Which is the first thing you did when you came back to give this article attention. You asked that user also to come to your sandbox to talk about the changes to this article which would avoid the natural transparency of wikipedia. You haven't moved forward regarding the "violations"? You went to AN/I twice and to BLPN. You've canvassed other editors and tried to merge/delete and then recreate. What does not moving forward mean exactly? Hell BLP/N was opened before and while you took it to AN/I. You saying you haven't moved forward seems to be a bit of a lie. While you collaborated with Alf I was also one of the other editors involved. Roscelese was involved as well. It's also probably going to be hard to collaborate with you having an issue with talk page use. Honestly the big issue seems to be that your not getting your way. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
^^^Exactly why nothing is getting done to improve this article. It's rather shameful that you are trying to take credit for any of the editing on the main page of this article. You have provided little if any constructive input in recent months. In fact, one of the edits you adamantly defended had to be changed after I took it to the BLP noticeboard because it violated WP:BLP and WP:POV. Your actual main page edits amount to a total of 41 bytes compared to my 17,521 bytes, and Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's 7,838. If you feel the need to engage other editors, take your disruptive behavior to one of the noticeboards, and stop disrupting those of us who are trying to improve this article. Atsme☯Consult 19:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry that's abit of a joke. The BLPN change was made by me after discussion with another editor. This type of thing happens in the normal consensus process. The other editor made a relevant point and it was changed accordingly. A point which you didn't make and a change that you protested later. But I'm glad to see you're ok with it now. Would you like to talk about something relevant? I could mention the change recently removed by Djrun. You know how he removed content that you put in in March. But why? That's not actually relevant.Shameful? Well that would be true if I actually claimed to have been the one to make the final edit but then that didn't happen. I took part in the discussion on the talk page and was involved in the consensus. This topic was opened for the Greg Barrett source.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Clearly delusional. ^ This article needs editors, not self appointed talk page critics who have nothing positive to contribute, and whose only focus is to divert attention away from the real issues. Sad. Hopefully experienced editors will ignore your rhetoric, and help me fix the problems.Atsme☯Consult 21:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Delusional or Talk page critics? lol. This unsurprisingly doesn't amount to anything more than a joke. Rhetoric? Your whole response was rhetoric.This conversation is over. On the off chance any "experienced editor" wants to bother with this tiresome affair I'll be happy to link you to the relevant material. From some of her Racist comments that relate to this matter. I'll link you to her previous attempts at canvassing. The matter speaks for itself. I'll link you to the whole torrid affair.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Go elsewhere if your only purpose here is to provoke an argument. Your foolish attempts to denigrate me, and dredge up past discussions are harmful to the project. The only time you're even heard from is when another editor attempts to improve this article, and then you jump in and create disruption. You are not the steward of this article, so stop acting like it, especially considering the only mentionable edits you've ever contributed are on this Talk page. You are in no position to be criticizing my edits considering the text I added equals 58.7% of the total text, and your's is barely 0.1%. Furthermore, you are not in a position to be giving other editors advice about what is or isn't "relevant". You have been more of a hinderance than a help to this project, and now you have the audacity to lay claim to it as the know-all link master? You need to step aside so real editors can get some work done. You obviously don't have anything useful to contribute, or you would have done it by now. I'm talking about real edits, not your rhetorical, nonsensical Talk page gibberish that has been extremely disruptive, and a major slow down to this project's progress. If you want to improve the article, start by correcting your own WP:NOR and WP:SYNC violations, and deleting the bad faith redirects. I won't get my hopes up because I don't expect a 4 yr. editor with over 48% of his edits on Talk pages and less than 14% to articles will understand what it takes to turn a starter class article into a GA, much less one that is worthy of inclusion in WP. I remain optimistic that a few good editors will show up one day, and collaborate with me in a good faith attempt to edit an accurate version of IPTF that is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. In the interim, I am moving forward with my work to correct all the misinformation, and the WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH policy violations. My invitation remains open to all editors who are interested in collaborating in a good faith attempt to improve this abortion of an article. Atsme☯Consult 04:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

John Sugg source

It is unclear why a better source is needed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Pasted this here from the "External links" section

Various IPT reports and transcripts of Congressional testimony

108.176.24.195 (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The list you provided above are primary sources published at Emerson's IPT website. Seriously? WP:NOR specifically states: The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. Also, when did WP start permitting actual editors to cite court documents and congressional testimony as reliable sources? Testimony is just that - testimony - Congress is the Legislative Branch of government. If Emerson's testimony is notable, there will be secondary and third party sources writing about it. Where are those sources?

Furthermore, if you had simply clicked on the first link for verifiability, you would have seen the following heading: Statement of Steven Emerson Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information February 24, 1998 Foreign Terrorists in America: Five Years After the World Trade Center Bombing

Where do you see "The Investigative Project on Terrorism" mentioned anywhere? Where are the secondary and third-party sources that provide verifiability of The Investigative Project that do not refer back to Steven Emerson who headed up his own think-tank. Picking bits and pieces here and there to form the whole is WP:SYNTH. Go down the list of sources you forgot to verify, and explain why you think they are reliable or verifiable per WP policy. Explain why you think they are not exclusive to Steven Emerson when it is his actual testimony? Also, explain why you think his testimony in a congressional hearing is notable when secondary and third party sources do not?

This article has more than its share of editors willing to grab stuff off the IPT website without verifying it.Atsme☯Consult 18:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  • This is from the external link section. It was moved to the external link section after you put it in the middle of the article, Atsme.This person has now moved it here to discuss. Are you caught up now?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I know where it's from - I'm the one who listed the links as a relative newbie before I realized the repercussions of WP:BLP and WP:NOR. Now I do, and I'm trying to fix this mess, part of which I feel responsible for creating before I knew better. Alf moved it to the external link section stating: (→‎External links: put all the external links to PDFs in the external links section, where they (at least arguably) belong) Regardless, "this person" is an IP that has had an account for about 6 days. It's rather strange that a 6 day old IP account would immediately zero in on an event that took place on March 23, 2014 in the external links section of this article citing the following over and over again "Testimony of Steven Emerson, Executive Director IPT" when there is no such recognition on all of the documents. Are you caught up now? I may be inexperienced, but I'm not stupid. Atsme☯Consult 19:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Your comments here contradict your TLDR above. While the IP did zoom in on material from March 23, they did so on October 9. There is no logical reason to assume they actually knew this material was put in there on March 23. I don't find it rather strange that an IP that has only been editing for 6 days would be editing wikipedia. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you can also explain why it was done since there is no explanation accompanying the post. Any ideas? Atsme☯Consult 20:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you could go to their talk page and ask them why they removed content you agree should have been removed from the article. The easiest way to find out why a person took an action would probably be to ask that person don't you think?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Simple answer for why I didn't go to their Talk page - I don't want you to accuse me of canvassing, or whatever else you might come up with to try and make it look like I've done something to violate policy. Your stated "intent and purpose" for me has created somewhat of a trust issue. Atsme☯Consult 20:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
If you don't want to be accused of canvassing that is a simple matter. Don't canvass. If you want to investigate your suspicion of bad faith go ask them.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The IP editor who deleted the external links provided the following explanation on my Talk page: I moved those links to the talk page because they're not appropriate as external links. External links are supposed to be the organization's official website(s). --108.176.24.195 (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC) External links are not "supposed to be the organization's official website", so the reason given was incorrect. WP:External links states: Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. 108.176.24.195, whether they belong as external links will depend on the outcome of the alleged BLP violations that are currently being discussed at BLPN. See the tag at the top of the page. Editorially speaking, I have no objection to stripping everything in the article because of all the inaccuracies, misinformation, BLP issues, etc. Either way, a consult on the Talk page would have been a much better approach before deleting, or a diff with an explanation would have also worked instead of adding the list here, especially considering the relentless controversy surrounding this article. Atsme☯Consult 13:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, The relevant portion of wp:el as it pertains to these links is quite lower. WP:ELOFFICIAL and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Most though not all of these links are from IPT's website. Besides that of course WP:ELPOINTS. IP just keep boldly editing. You don't have to bring stuff like this to the talk page when you have no clue the article has drama in the first place.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The links have nothing to do with BLP. LINKFARM/ELMINOFFICIAL is the issue. It's not our job to direct users around IPT's site for them; we just give the main link. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree for the following reason: Wikipedia:External_links#External_links_section which is the applicable section in addition to what I cited above. Regardless, it's a topic not worth arguing over because we all agree that it doesn't belong. However, its former inclusion is relevant to WP:BLPGROUPS because it further validates the alleged BLP violation regarding Emerson's exclusivity. All but one link in the list is exclusive to Steven Emerson, and that one exception is the link to Hoekstra's testimony. Hoekstra is identified as a "Former Chairman Of The House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, Shillman Senior Fellow With The Investigative Project On Terrorism" which proves nothing about IPT beyond trivial mention. Furthermore, there are no reliable secondary or third party sources writing about it which makes his testimony OR. In the event there is confusion over how NOR relates to WP:BLP and WP:BLPGROUPS, I recommend reading the policy. Atsme☯Consult 11:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Your former addition to this article doesn't validate the notability case that you are trying to forumshop to BLPN.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

CAP and undue

A source to represents CAP's position on IPT has an undue tag beside it. It's unclear why. CAP represent a significant minority POV and would certainly be prominent adherents. Little space is given to this.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The Center of American Progress is a political pressure group not significantly different than the Heritage Foundation (on the other end of the left-right polarization in US politics). There actually does need to be care taken with the pronouncements of organizations like these to assure that any quotes from them represent fact and not WP:WEASEL or worse, WP:TERRORIST. In this specific case, the CAP's announcement that the UPT is part of an "islamophobia" network - "islamophobia" is much like "terrorist" in its vagueness and potential for abuse.
The existence of "prominent adherents" to a viewpoint or "prominent supporters" for an accusation is WP:WEASEL when used to counteract a claim of WP:UNDUE - it in no way replaces the requirement for RS. Charlie Sheen and Tony Bennett both think the 9/11 attacks were an "inside job," but their prominence in no way qualifies them as RS on those attacks.
That the Center for American Progress maintains an "islamophobia network" list and placed IPT on it may well be a source given undue weight, given that the Center for American Progress isn't a center for the study of "islamophobia" per se, but a political advocacy group. It actually appears to be in the same business as IPT, and while their opinion of IPT might be useful in the article, that's only if the context in which its remarks about IPT is clear - especially the nature of the term "islamophobia," which ought to be evaluated to make sure it's not violating WP:TERRORIST. loupgarous (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Most of this was already discussed archived talkpage conversation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Centers for American progress- And undue weight

The only actual discussion that has taken place on the matter is that the source may not be reliable and a whole lot of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The discussion on the source has stalled and doesn't justify an undue tag. A discussion on 'I just don't like it' is never relevant. This is a significant or noteworthy set of opinions with prominent adherents. This is not in wikipedia voice. It represents the views of the source and is attributed to the source. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

For information regarding the issues with IPT, please review Archive 2

For some reason, an editor keeps sorting through the Talk page discussions and archives what he doesn't want other editors to see. I ask that you please review Archive 2 (see the link above) so you will know what issues this article faces. I am setting up an auto-archive and hereby request User:Serialjoepsycho to please refrain from archiving discussions on a pick and choose basis. Atsme☯Consult 20:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It's Serialjoepsycho actually. Off topic and resolved discussion were archived.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
It was a good thought in theory, but it is not up to one editor to determine what gets archived and when. The cleanup discussion should not have been archived so quickly. Either it all gets archived, or none of it gets archived. Atsme☯Consult 10:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually no. There's no policy that says you either archive it all or none. WP:TALKCOND says that you can archive when a topic is no longer being discussed. Resolved and offtopic discussions were archived.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikiprojects and synth tag

wp:WikiProject WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. The tag will not remain until your wikiproject of choice said it should be removed, Atsme. You were more than month to discuss this. You even actually discussed this in AfD failing to persuade anyone. Prior you had failed to get a consensus at a merge, delete, and recreate discussion on the Steven Emerson. You've discussed at BLPN, you've discussed this at 3 ANI's. [5] The tag questioning the source that verify the sources was removed already. The source shows that the project was founded in 1995 and that the foundation was established in 2006. Your issue seems to be that I removed tag.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope you get over the WP:DONTGETIT issue soon because it really is annoying. The prior AfD, the merge request and the numerous RfCs failed to recognize the core issue which was the BLP violation. Instead of citing WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, I should have been citing WP:BLPGROUPS. The recent BLPN you initiated resolved the core issue so now it's time to move forward with BLP in mind. The inextricable link between Steven Emerson and IPT is simply not going away. On the main page of Emerson's IPT website [6], a section header states: What others say about Emerson and the Investigative Project on Terrorism. There you have it. Atsme☯Consult 12:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Posting WP:BLPGROUPS offers nothing to your case. If you post that blue link it doesn't change the fact that IPT was founded in 1995. It doesn't change the fact that it's financial arm was started in 2006. IPT's website is still reliable source under WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Again, you still don't get it. The information at the website is not verifiable AND there are sources that dispute the website's claim which you disputed in earlier discussions. You included a Wikilink above in an attempt to prove your case, but you obviously didn't read the guidelines: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Where are the reliable third-party publications? Read it again and again until you finally get it. There are third party pubs that dispute what the IPT website claims. The IPT website information is not reliable, not verifiable, it doesn't eliminate the governing policy of WP:BLP which requires top quality sources, and it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:SPS. Atsme☯Consult 16:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh you don't get it? Ok. That's fine. wp:aboutself explains it fairly clearly. You must have missed where the requirement that you have bolded above is not required if those 5 points are met.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

A note regarding cleanup...

All of the articles and books that have been reviewed to date point back to Emerson, dba The Investigative Project with only trivial mention of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, which is really nothing more than the name of Emerson's website.[7] There are 3 different "projects" that were combined to justify the inclusion of IPT on Wikipedia under the guise of "common name". They are all inextricably linked to Steven Emerson, private researcher/terrorism expert, and include (1) The Investigative Project, which was Emerson's former "think-tank"; (2) The Investigative Project on Terrorism, which is Emerson's self-promotional website used to solicit donations; and (3) The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, the charitable Foundation Emerson founded and organized in 2006 for tax purposes. As a result of the inextricable link to Emerson, the IPT article must strictly adhere to BLP policy per WP:BLPGROUPS. The article has a litany of issues including WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and WP:RS for starters. That pretty much sums it up in a nutshell. Atsme☯Consult 12:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a whole lot of Original Research. The sources you provide do not back up your position. 3 groups, the investigative project, the investigative project on terrorism, and the investigative project on terrorism foundation. Or 1 group and a funding arm of that group that it is inextricably linked to. The investigative project on Terrorism was founded in 1995[8] and the investigative project on terrorism foundation is it's funding arm. In the peer reviewed middle Eastern quarterly[9] Professor George Michael quotes Sue Myrick calling the group 'The investigative project'. On IPT's website they have a news section with a listing articles by IPT. This article[10] is from there. At the bottom it mentions that Lorenzo Vidino is the Senior Terrorism analyst at the Investigative Project. There is a inextricable link of Dave thomas to Wendy's, Sam Walton to Walmart, and Colonel Sanders to KFC. Founding something with notoriety does that. However Steven Emerson isn't IPT. Others such as Lorenzo Vidino, Pete Hoekstra, and others I pointed out elsewhere are a part of IPT. It's not "Common name" but WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia prefers to use the most recognizable name. You make the case that we should use the 'official name' yet don't actually do anything in the way of showing The investigative project on terrorism is the official name. Even if you did that that is still not the common name. WP:BLPGROUPS offers a very limited protection, it's case by case based on common sense judgement. You fail to give a reasonable basis to change the title from it's common name or to remove mention of it's 1995 founding.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you can find an article dating back to 1995 or thereabouts that can be used as a reliable source regarding something IPT did during that time. All I've found so far is information about Steven Emerson, an independent journalist. [11] However, I'm still searching for reliable sources. Atsme☯Consult 23:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
This one was written in the Brown Alumni Magazine in November/December 2002 - it says Emerson named his organization The Investigative Project.... a kind of think tank to function both as a repository for the material and as a vehicle for continuing what was now a full-fledged fixation on Islamism. [12]. Show me some reliable third party sources for verifiability that The Investigative Project on Terrorism was founded in 1995. Atsme☯Consult 23:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I would if there was a need to but there actually isn't. [13] This is a reliable source per WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
There isn't a need for what? The lede needs to be expanded, and there needs to be a History section on the so-called organization. Here is another source with multiple references at the bottom of the page, none of which mention anything about The Investigative Project on Terrorism. You know why? It didn't exist. [14]Atsme☯Consult 23:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
There is no need for the obvious... The third party source that you have requested that shows that IPT was founded in 1995.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
BTW is there a point to the source you added at the end of your comment?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Please try to understand the problem here instead of ignoring it as you did with the BLP violations that required two trips to BLPN and one to ANI. The only "obvious" in this case is the fact that the IPT website is not reliable, and cannot be cited. Furthermore, IPT is inextricably linked to Steven Emerson and that isn't going away. IPT is a very small group, and as such, WP policy states: ...when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. There's no doubt anymore which means we have to adhere to BLP policy. WP:BLPSELFPUB:

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

IPT gets nixed as a reliable source because for starters, it is neither high quality nor reliable, and to that we add the following:

  1. the website is used for soliciting donations <---unduly self-serving;
  2. the website involves claims about third parties - [15] - profiles "apologists or extremists";
  3. the information published is self-promotional;
  4. there is more than reasonable doubt as to its authenticity including reliable secondary and third party sources that contradict the "about" page of the website, and some backup their claims with legal documentation.
  5. the article is based primarily on such sources.

There are reliable secondary and third party sources that contradict what the self-published website claims, including the Tennessean: Emerson incorporated his for-profit company, SAE Productions, in Delaware in 1995. He launched the nonprofit Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation in Washington, D.C., in 2006. But he doesn't make that distinction on his website, www.investigativeproject. org, which describes the Investigative Project on Terrorism as "a non-profit research group founded by Steven Emerson in 1995." [16] And there's the New Yorker article about Katz who went to work for IP (not IPT) in 1999 - there was NO Investigative Project on Terrorism in existence at that time ... Her employer was the Investigative Project, run by Steven Emerson.... and The Investigative Project was an exciting place to be. By the mid-nineties, the Internet had begun to change intelligence gathering profoundly, allowing groups like Emerson’s to emerge... [17]

And then there are the following guidelines...WP:Truth,_not_verifiability and WP:How many legs does a horse have?. Atsme☯Consult 18:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but 1)The claim that they are founded in 1995 and that the Investigative project on Terrorism foundation is there financial arm is not unduly self serving. 2)The page in question does not make claims about third parties. 3)it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject 4)Not really. The source somewhere above by Professor George Michael mentions the 1995 founding. The sources that you mention don't support the claims you have made. 5)The article isn't primarily based off such sources. Thank you for posting the two Essays. Is there anything particular in these two Essays you wish to discuss?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
You are mistaken. Will take it from here. Atsme☯Consult 23:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Well you go ahead from here and go get a consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPGROUPS

It was determined that IPT is inseparably associated with Steven Emerson, therefore the same policies that apply to a BLP also apply to IPT per WP:BLPGROUPS. Comments about Steven Emerson should be directed to Steven_Emerson. Also keep in mind there are DS applied to articles with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles Thank you - Atsme☯Consult 23:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not been determined that IPT is inseparable from Emerson. Now this recent controversy would actually just fall under the general BPL. Yes if there is talk about this situation on his page it would be better to simply direct it there.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Following is an excerpt of the actual terminology from the October 2014 BLP-N determination: However, it emerges during the discussion that one paragraph in WP:BLP says that small groups may be indistinguishable from individuals. The consensus below is that the so-called "Investigative Project on Terrorism" is little more than a front for its big chief, Stephen Emerson. Editors agree that Mr Emerson as a living person is protected by BLP, and his project is so close to him that it can hide under the same umbrella. (It is suggested that the two articles should be merged, but this outcome is precluded by the recent AfD that led to a "keep" consensus. Whatever the solution to this dispute might be, it involves two separate articles.) It is close enough to the same meaning as inseparably associated, or inextricably linked. What is happening right now is why I still believe the two should be merged. Atsme☯Consult 05:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
This was not a broad opinion. This is a narrow opinion. It was in a very specific dispute. It is not a trump card to pull out every time someone posts edits here. You would have to take the new matter to BLPN. But This situation does fall under the general BLP policy in that relates directly to Mr Emerson. And as there is discussion currently over the same or related matters at that article it would be advisable to discuss this there.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, I don't agree that including criticism or negative material about IPT would fall foul of BLP; the community determined that they weren't inseparable enough to merge, so while I disagree, we still need to treat IPT as an organization like any other. However, I think it's necessary for users who want to add information on this latest faux-pas to demonstrate that it has reflected upon IPT in order to add it to this article, and not basically been focused on Emerson. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, Rosc - but just thought it would be helpful to quote the closer's comment that Emerson's "project is so close to him that it can hide under the same umbrella." This is a good example of why I thought IPT should have been merged, and left as a section in Emerson. It is much too difficult to determine who Emerson is representing at any given time. I think IPT may be nothing more than a funding mechanism, but don't want to get in that debate again. Perhaps it will be realized in the future before we're forced to deal with double whammies that affect both articles. Atsme☯Consult 02:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not NPOV

There is a substantial number of sources critical of this organization, and that material is missing from the article. Tagged accordingly until such time in which these sources are added. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

One source that has extensive material on this organization, which could be used to bring the article to NPOV status:

  • Terrified: How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream, Christopher Bail, Princeton University Press, Dec 21, 2014 - ISBN 9781400852628

- Cwobeel (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed the tags from the lead. What ever is of issue should be sourced in the body. Christopher Bail, this seems to be in the field of his study. It's the Princeton University Press. Seems like a reliable source at a glance.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Oklahoma bombing gaffe

Please stop adding the Oklahoma bombing gaffe here. It was not a function of IPT. Emerson made the statement on CBS News on 4/19/95 when he was still working under contract as an investigative reporter. He was writing books, and also columns for The Washington Post and USA Today at the time. The think-tank came afterwards. Besides, it is already mentioned on Steven Emerson, and it actually rates a ZERO on the significance scale because it was what law enforcement had concluded at the time. Jiminy Cricket, nobody cares about his wrong guess 20 years ago. It's a Timothy McVeigh story, not an IPT story. UNDUE, tabloid sensationalism in an encyclopedia stinks. Atsme☯Consult 01:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

See Page 31 in Terrified: How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream, Christopher Bail, Princeton University Press, Dec 21, 2014 - ISBN 9781400852628, where the connection is made. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
It is a valid citation and the claim is made by a source that is not trivial. The statement checks out and this is fine when attributed as such. However, the claim that is was ordinary Muslims was false - Emerson was referring to jihadic elements and his words were used against him to great effect. He was wrong and context is context - but this can stay provided that sources be used appropriately. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
ChrisGualtieri - The Investigative Project on Terrorism was not in existence when Emerson was reporting for CBS News, so it doesn't belong here. IPT came into being months later. Besides, the gaffe is included in the Emerson BLP. You can't intermingle the two. Atsme☯Consult 07:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • See [18] April 27, 1995 @ 3:22:50 Steven Emerson is introduced as an author & journalist who specializes in national security issues - he is not introduced in any way as executive director of the Investigative Project, or Investigative Project on Terrorism because it did not exist at that time. @ 3:30:00 again introduced by the Chair, and then Steven Emerson comes on live mic and introduces himself. No mention of IPT. Watch the video. Are we going to get this article right, or not? Encyclopedia or advocacy? Atsme☯Consult 07:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't try to whitewash the article. You cannot wish away the reliable source making the connection. Binksternet (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous at this point. I have a canvassed editor dropping notes on my page about a minor error that can simply be fixed. Here's a crazy idea, fix it and post in the edit summary what you fixed. I restored it after a tendentious editor removed it in addition to other parts that have been repeatedly discussed at blpn and elsewhere. Great we still want to fluff the article. Great get a concensus. Canvasers and those canvassed stay off my talk page and get consensus on the talk page or thru some other means of dispute resolution.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
This bad faith allegation was made following the removal of a serious error is not helpful or productive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@ChrisGualtieri:,I missed this before. I restored content that was removed without consensus[19]. It was removed not based on your "serious" error, but other reasoning. It was removed by an editor involved in a long standing editing dispute over the same content without discussion. It has been to be BLPN and likely discussed in many other places. Some of this information that was restored has been retained, aside from your "serious" error. Your initial message to me [20] after Atsme [21] canvassed you. Before Atsme campaigned you to the article, you had edited the article [22] and this "serious" error was missed by you to. There's no bad faith allegation. There's nothing to, "Please be more careful in the future." about.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Serialjoepsycho The text appears to have been altered and it is why I removed the error, but the protection prohibited fixing of the issue itself. While I do not think "unapologetic" is the right way to describe it... the correct quote and attribution in the first half is accurate now. As you have seen, I am not siding with Atsme - but I want verifiability and veracity. In a matter (as you see on my talk) I have just scolded Atsme for behavior that was detrimental and embodying the very battleground behavior that makes Wikipedia toxic to so many editors. With that being said... your readdition is suitable and I find no other issue then the "unapologetic" stance.... which is not far off the mark. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Not trying to whitewash anything. Just trying to get the correct information into the article, and stop the double posting of the same information on both IPT and Emerson. If the double posting is continues, it will substantiate the need to merge. Atsme☯Consult 09:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Atsme - remember my advice? It applies here. The source exists and whether it is due or undue is a matter of debate - but stick to removing only clear BLP violations and working within policy. Disengage for a bit because you are emotionally involved and the book source is not trivial, it will remain in the article and I even made sure the claim was attributed to the author who cites another source - who is also fairly reliable. It should remain because it is a small mention that covers roughly 5 years of time and is directly connected to the topic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Promise...I never get emotionally involved. I would however like to keep this article encyclopedic, but equally as important is maintaining IPT and Emerson as separate articles, much the same way Breitbart and Andrew Breitbart have been maintained. I don't see why similar diligence would not apply here. GF collaboration is definitely welcome, and I hope it's the direction we're headed but the latter also includes adding more than just 20 year old criticisms to discredit a BLP. Atsme☯Consult 17:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
IPT and Emerson are inexorably linked. Old criticisms have raised to become relevant today because of his current misrepresentation of Birmingham. You called these "gaffes" but one could easily argue that this is a recurrent pattern of poor judgement and confirmation bias on Emerson's part. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but I have no interest in conjecture or POV. Provide the multiple RS that support such claims as required by BLP. The fact that Emerson and IPT are inextricably linked extends BLP protection to IPT per WP:BLPGROUPS. The criticisms recently added to the History section are WP:UNDUE, and actually outweigh IPT's own history and mission. The biased opinions of a few critics should be represented for what they are (minority view and/or fringe) without undue weight. I also don't consider a few gaffes including a few off-target predictions in 25+ years as indicative of a pattern, unless you're referring to the pattern of a growing bias among Emerson's critics which includes CAIR, the organization that was listed by the US government as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation Trial, and the liberal think-tank, CAP. Atsme☯Consult 19:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment When this was originally inserted it was paired with the portion on "Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America", both it's seems prior to the founding of IPT. Common sense lead's me to question this particular order, especially when Christopher Bail source reflects on the 'Terrorists Among Us' film. It's almost as if we wrote this in this order to detract from the information contained in the second paragraph. This may detract from the overall NPOV.
You also have to question Balance given here. Rather prominent weight has been given to this prehistory section. It certainly would a good question if was asked if that is undue and if it has an overall negative effect on the NPOV?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Plenty of time has been given for a response here. I'm going to wait a little while longer for a response but not much.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH?

Emerson learned from his mistake and rose to prominence by 2002 after focusing on inflammatory speech by well-known Muslim leaders like Abdurahaman Alamoudi.[1]

References

  1. ^ "48 Hours: Tracking Terror - Steve Emerson Watches Islamic Terrorist". Cbs News. 30 January 2015. Retrieved 1 February 2015.

The text above which was added recently, seems to be apologist for Emerson and WP:SYNTH, as I could not find any material about "learning from his mistake" and "raising to prominence" on the source provided. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ditto about the en passant comment. It is not our role as editors to characterize coverage of a subject in a book in that manner. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The first issue is clearly supported by the source - did you Ctrl-F for the specific wording or something? And yes, the entire book did not address Emerson in any detail or way nor discuss in the actual text anything about Emerson at all. An introduction to the text giving less than a sentence is not an actual discussion in the book at all. Republished editions often drop such introductions because they are not in the book itself. The book does not discussion or evaluate Emerson in any way or form, the mention is in passing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Changed the wording to reflect Emerson's voice rather than Wikipedia's. Also removed the "prominence" bit because of SYNTH. I am still in disagreement about the "in passing", a silly attempt to diminish the significant criticism in that book. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

An en passant comment on that source, about Emerson "suddenly being in demand" is not "rose to prominence' - That is original research. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Significant criticism = less than half a sentence not even in the body of a book? Mmmkay, whatever you say. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
A book chapter describing Islamohobia and mass hysteria narratives about Muslim Americans. Of course it is significant. Read the chapter and then let me know if you still disagree. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no chapter which refers to Emerson in The Cambridge Companion to American Islam - the only mention is that passing mention in the introduction. Do you personally own the book or are you just looking it up on Google Books? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Since when is an introduction not a chapter? And anyway, what would such a merely semantic distinction allow one to conclude?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
read the chapter. It is available online on Google books (at least form me it is). - Cwobeel (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The opening of this discussion doesn't seem to reflect the current article. Could you provide a diff so there's context?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@Serialjoepsycho: The text was updated to conform with WP:V and avoid synth. You can see the new text in the third paragraph of the Investigative Project on Terrorism#History and mission section. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the point was missed but never mind.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism/Archive_2&oldid=789389513"